Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

This has to be about the dumbest thing people say around here. Shakespeare was trying to make money too; this mere fact has not prevented literary criticism of Shakespeare for hundreds of years.

What something was originally intended "to do" or "to be" is not the final word on what it "is" or "does." Penecillium fungi are not designed by nature to serve as antibiotics for humans, but this has not prevented us from making penecillin.

If we limited ourselves in our discussions of Trek to this singular criterion, our discussions would be ridiculously impoverished. "This film was 'made just to make money.' This film made money. Therefore, this film (and all the aspects that comprise it) is a success! Not a word can be uttered against it!"

I don´t said I´m cool with make more money, I don´t said that I like how the movie was made or that no word can be said against the success in making money versus script holes. I just said that´s the way how the thingies are made.

Your annalogy about Penecillium fungi to be usefull for a thing other than it was originally planned, is... weird. It can´t be compared with I would like the movie (or the ship) done by this (or that way). So, this has to be about the dumbest thing people say around here.

Criticism is the right (and choice, of course) of us all, but with respect and intelligence. First, understand the words and, later, apply criticism.

I don´t said I´m cool with make more money, I don´t said that I like how the movie was made or that no word can be said against the success in making money versus script holes.

Why didn't you said so in the first place?

Starship wrote:

I just said that´s the way how the thingies are made.

Not how, but why.

If all you are doing is making an observation, you are not making a move in a discussion. Without a claim to which you are attaching this observation, you are simply stating the obvious.Of course films are profit engines for filmmakers.

Your caught in the horns of a dilemma here. You're either saying something correct but uninteresting or interesting but incorrect. I leave it to you to sort out where to take your final stand.

Starship wrote:

Your annalogy about Penecillium fungi to be usefull for a thing other than it was originally planned, is... weird.

It's not an analogy. It's an example. It shows how things which we find may be purposed or repurposed. Fungi have biological function which has kept them around for a long time. We may loosely speak of this function as being authored by Nature. In this sense (a sense that biologists deploy all the time), we may speak of the purpose of fungi and their repurposing by humans.

And there are many other examples which can be offered. What was once religion can be repurposed as a literature. What was once an electronic gadget can be repurposed as a paper weight. What was once an econo-box import can be repurposed as a racing "tuner." What was once an intentionally sad tune can be made happy if played briskly with slightly different instrumentation. And so on.

Starship wrote:

Criticism is the right (and choice, of course) of us all, but with respect and intelligence. First, understand the words and, later, apply criticism.

I didn't single you out. I think that what you said is quite representative of a certain contingent around these parts. And it is just about the dumbest thing people say around here. Of course, if you want to maintain that what you said was just an innocent observation (i.e., lie), feel free to do so. And if you aren't lying, then your ill-framed observation invites repurposing on my part as an example of a particuarly bad line of argument. So, there's another example for you.

Star Trek '09 is itself an example of repurposing. It has cut against the grain of Roddenberry's utopianism in favor of something hipper and lighter. And they've attempted to rearrange the shape of the Enterprise so that it is, at once,
different but the same. They're trying to breathe new life into the old girl. But the challenge is to create something which carries on the essence of the original while updating other features for contemporary audiences.

But the ship is ugly. It is as ugly as sin, and it is because it is being torn in two directions. It is, at once, the Enterprise, but not the Enterprise. It preserves enough of the old lines to be recognizable, but childishly distorts other features (comments about marital aids upthread were rather apt) to make it keewwwler, more macho, and (most importantly) BIGGER!

And what is wrong with the ship is what is philosophically wrong with the new franchise and with Trek fandom. I remember when JJ Abrams publicly disavowed Trek causing a bit of a disturbance that Robert Orci tried to quell in an article at Trekmovie.com by saying that that was just Abrams talking to non-Trek folks and trying to convince them that the new Trek wouldn't be all geeky.

In short, Star Trek is ashamed of itself. We're ashamed of people who dress like Starfleet officers and show up for jury duty. We're ashamed of people who actually learn to speak Klingon. Consequently, Star Trek is trying to be Star Trek without really being Star Trek. Hence we have the abomination that is the new Enterprise design.

Nick Meyers had the right approach. He wasn't a fan of the show, but he wasn't panicky about it. He took input from the actors and creators and worked to reverse engineer what made it work while changing it slightly to fit his vision. That's what Star Trek needs, not iconoclasts (RDM already had his anti-Trek TV show), not canonistas, but leaders who really try to honor the essence of the orignal (e.g., it's cheesy, but it ain't Star Wars either) while making changes that facilitate honoring and revitalizing that purpose.

Criticism: why do you put spaces around all of your apostrophes? It's not necessary.

Italic font is a better choice?
My intention is just to make clear the point I´m arguing about.

So you're point is to emphasize contractions.

sojourner wrote:

^I think he misunderstood your question regarding apostrophes.

RoJoHen wrote:

I got that. I'm just not sure how that's possible.

YARN wrote:

Starship wrote:

I don´t said I´m cool with make more money, I don´t said that I like how the movie was made or that no word can be said against the success in making money versus script holes.

Why didn't you saidso in the first place?

Did you guys not notice that Starship is from Brazil? It's quite possible that English is not his first language.

As to the weird apostrophes, the same thing has happened to me when I have accidentally used a French keyboard layout. I suspect that Starship is probably using a non-English Keyboard layout which is probably throwing off the characters.